variety of causes, and no city will ever compare with new york when it comes to raising money. i mean, i do a lot of events at the waldorf, and for sometimes for causes that almost no one knows about, and, you know, it's now routine to raise one and a half, two million dollars in a night at the waldorf. one of the things when we first began to have some money in our family and my girls sometimes were even more generous than i wanted them to be -- [laughter] how much we should give away and when. but i'd grown up with no money, and when i found part of the attractiveness of it is it does give you freedom and, b, you can help out worthy causes. but robin hood is a model. but there are a lot of models -- >> there are lots of models. >> i talk, i'll just share one other one with you that i'm particularly taken with now, and this has to do with education. which i think a lot of how we
reform education in the america will depend on the public/private partnership. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> and now, catherine crier argues that partisan politics are hurting the united states. she discusses a range of issues including the economy, health care and political debate. catherine crier speaks for about 50 minutes. >> we are privileged tonight to have with us an extraordinary woman and author of her new patriots act, "what americans must do to save the republic," catherine crier. [applause] an emmy, dupont, columbia and gracie allen award-winning journalist and the youngest state judge ever to be elected in texas, catherine crier joined
court tv's distinguished team of anchors in november 999. 1999. she served as executive editor, legal news special in addition to hosting "catherine crier live," a fast-paced, live daily series covering the day's front page stories. catherine crier, a texas-bred independent with a spirited passion for justice, released several books on high-profile case such as the scott peterson case and the susan polk murder case. catherine has hosted episodes of court tv's signature prime time series, "the system," and numerous other specials such as the sake l jury speaks with dominic dunn, osama bin laden on trial and safe passage, voices from the middle school part of the network's public
affairs initiative choices and consequences. prior to joining court tv, catherine anchored "the crier report" for fox news channel. [laughter] a live, hourlong, nightly program during which she interviewed the leading newsmakers of the day. catherine currently manages her own production company, crier communications, developing television, film and documentary projects. and now may i welcome with great pleasure catherine crier. [applause] >> well, actually, television has been very good to me, and it's been about 18 years starting at cnn and then abc, fox, court tv. but i want to take you all the way back to probably 5 or 6
years old. and i've gotten to the point now that i think it's genetic. i remember during the 1960 elections, um, arguing with family members about politics. so much so that my step grandfather would pretend to fall asleep so i would shut up. [laughter] obviously, i didn't have a clue, but as long as i can remember i have been passionate about the republic, about the founders, about our history, about politics. and my prelaw background was all, my degree was all politics, international affairs, government, history. um, i sort of went into law, my mother said i'd argue with a post, and i had to find a profession that would pay me to do that. but it was really an extension of that love because, you know, what is our law? it is the rule of law which is an essential cornerstone of democracy, of the republic. if we didn't have this amazing rule of law where instead of the
king going, you're my friend, the rules don't apply, you on the other hand i can do with what i want. no, instead we've got this amazing rule of law, but it's supposed to apply equitably to all citizens. and, in fact, my first book was nothing to do with crime, it was, well, then again, it was called the case against lawyers. [laughter] but it was really a political book. the subtitle was how lawyers, lobbyists and legislators have turned the rule of law into an instrument of tyranny and what citizens have to do about it. so it was a political book. and then wrote a book about the supreme court. so i've sort of balanced, and this is the third of the political books and much more, a broader-based book, but one that i would like to believe is very timely. because i am, frankly, very troubled about events today. and while some in the room may
immediately think, oh, it's because obama, or it's because health care or a particular issue, no, i am concerned more than anything about the integrity of the republic. of the constitutional republic. in which the founders contemplated liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats as they evolved would have vigorous fights, and we'd all, you know, carry on about which direction and the voters could decide every two and four years how we would shift and change. but all of that debating would take place on a relatively level playing field governed by certain rules set out in our constitution. what i mean by that is you had two extraordinary wings, liberals and conservatives back in the founders' days, you go back and read the constitutional debates, our founders were not on the same page. they had a lot of fights.
in fact, you've got on one side sort of the john adams, alexander hamiltons, the conservatives who when you go back and read their remarks, they wanted a monarchy. they wanted a hereditary senate. they liked the system as existed in england. on the other hand, you had ben franklin and thomas jefferson who said we want one house in congress to be elected every year, a real people's house, and we want an executive committee. we don't even want a presidency. they sound when you go back and read it much more like what was happening in the french revolution. there were real problems with both sides. one, you've got sort of a tyranny by monarchy, and the other you've got a tyranny by the masses, right? and so james madison is debted with creating the grand compromise, the constitution. where he said neither the left, nor the right as they existed in
1789 are going to dominate. we are not going to create a system that favors one or the other. we are going to create a system that, in fact, is as level a playing field on which the various ideologies can wrestle as we possibly can. certainly, when they constructed this, the senate was going to be a bit more elite. i mean, back in those days, you know, it would be hard to get support across large swaths of territory. so someone with a little more power and money was likely to get elected. the people's house, the house of representatives, was going to be much more for the common man. jefferson and franklin got a little bit, and adams and hamilton got a little bit. we had a president, but he was going to be elected every four years. so it was this amazing, level playing field. i start there because today we're hearing that my party
represents the founders. no, my party does. and i'm thinking, well, you've got to go back and figure out that these guys weren't on the same page and, in fact, it was this extraordinary playing field that is what distinguishes our amazing republic. and it is under attack today in many respects. a favorite quote of mine is from john adams, and he said ideology is the science of idiots. today i think we ought to carry that around and wear it on our lapels. [laughter] and the reason i say is we have this great, level playing field, and i try in the book to take everyone back and then show how both conservative and liberal ideologies have developed over time and how, in fact, when you get up to present day, you will find that they have almost reversed positions in several
very important respects. which means if you are wed to an ideology, swearing it's the founders' ideology, guess what? it's the science of idiots because, in fact, it's not at all what was going on in 1789. today if you listen to republicans, most conservatives will tell you states' rights, small government. low taxes, right? keep government out of our lives. guess whose agenda that was in 1789? oh, come on. that was the radical, leftist, possibly atheist or at least deist thomas jefferson. that was franklin and jefferson. because, think about it, jefferson was this sort of gentleman farmer living in virginia. he didn't need the country to be big and dynamic. he imagined small businesses and farmers and quiet and bucolic and a bit isolationist, wanted
to kind of stay away from the world. that was jefferson. all right? then the democrats today, oh, they're the big government and, you know, they're trying to tax the people, and they've got all of these -- the government should be building jobs and doing things and creating -- alexander hamilton is considered the father of conservativism. our first secretary of the treasury. you know what the very first thing he did? he demanded that the country establish a deficit. and he went around, and he bought up all of the revolutionary war debt from the states, brought it up -- took it, brought it in. jefferson is over there screaming, can't do it, unconstitutional, strict construction of the constitution, said the liberal. hamilton goes, balderdash. i'm big enough to do it, and i've got to have a big, powerful central government to do what i have in mind, and that is to create this grand global
powerhouse that can, by george, compete with europe. we're going to show those guys that we're not going to be treated like this sort of peon, this colony over here, and you're going to take our resources and sell 'em back to us. no, we're going to beat you at the game. but what did he need to do that? he needed to be able to borrow money. he needed to create a deficit in this country. he needed to tax. and, by george, the whiskey rebellion was because he was taxing the little guys, they were, higher rate than the big guys. he's going what good are the small shopkeepers and farmers? they can't give me what i need, big revenues. so tax the little guys and get 'em out of the way because what i want to do is i want to have this powerful, big government. i want to marry it with the powerful, wealthy elite in this country and, by george, i'm going to come together, and we're going to build banks and roads and canals and bridges and
all -- and we're going to be able to compete. so that was conservativism in many 1789. now, it is phenomenal to me when we cannot get infrastructure legislation passed in this country, and i chastise, i go after both sides in the book, i assure you. but i really chastise the conservatives, the republicans today. even when i was a kid in a conservative republican family, which party was going to build things, grand things, was going to make this country this competitive entity? in my mind it was the republicans. you know, the democrats were kind of wandering around and disorganized and didn't want to do any of this stuff. and then when i got into the history and i started tracking it through, i realized this was quite the consistent can republican policy until about the great depression.
and from that moment on we began to see it stair step down, and that's really when i think it seems most of the reversal in the political parties began. because when franklin roosevelt ran for office in 1932, it was still the old time, traditional democratic platform; small government, low taxes. he went after hoover for, you know, the big financial industry married to the government that, of course, he asserted and i think in hindsight many of us say led to the crash in '29. but then he comes in and, of course, the economy has crashed. and there are all of these very desperate people. and his first new deal policy -- there were actually two. the first new deal he was creating and allowing monopolies in this country. he brought the big corporatists into the white house. what are we going to do to fix things? there was a lot of mess.
and the supreme court reversed a lot of what he was doing. but if you look at the first new deal, it was a real effort to bring business and government together to fix the problems. by the time we go around to the second new deal, that's where a lot of conservatives begin to object because those were the social policies that he created to build a safety net. and, of course, he didn't really support welfare without work, so instead of handing out unemployment checks he put people to work, the wpa and the cca and built a lot of things. but that's where you begin to see the democrats developing the reputation as the party of big government. and yet i read an article in 1937 where the economists said, basically, franklin roosevelt saved capitalism. and this has happened several times throughout our history when you see teddy roosevelt did
this and franklin roosevelt and others, where at moments of tremendous instability which, actually, is inherent in capitalism because you do have a wealthy class created inevitably which is not a bad thing. could be a very good thing. but oftentimes if the disparity gets really great or if we go through the boom and bust periods which happens with capitalism, you know, as you get more risk and you build up assets and you've got, you know, the wealthy out there sort of speculating whether it's a housing boom here or tech boom there, and you'll have the booms and busts. and when the middle class, lower classes, the majority of people in this country are -- become desperate, when there is no safety net and you see the government have to step in, oftentimes this country has been very good at creating the
stability that capitalism needs to survive and flourish. if you allow the disparity to increase and you don't have jobs and you don't have opportunity -- not equal outcomes, but opportunity for the wide swath of american citizens, you create instability that can result in riots, in ultimately even revolution as we've seen in other countries. 1910 was sort of the socialists' moment in the sun, and that was a time when the workers of this country, that was sort of the upton sinclair era in the jungle, you know, the workers were getting desperate. and you had teddy roosevelt smart enough to go, you know, i love corporations, and i love big businesses, but this is a moment when we have to take action like the anti-sherman trust act, other things to begin
to regulate, to modulate the concentration of wealth and power. so when we look at moments in time where we're increasing government participation, we're increasing social safety nets, there are bad things about it, but there are good things. you don't overdo it, be it the bureaucracy or handing out checks. but understand that stability, economic opportunity, the ability to earn a paycheck and, of course, buy as a consumer in this country, all of these things are necessary for capitalism to flourish. for small, medium businesses, entrepreneurs, innovation, all of that must have that kind of social setting. so, again, it's back to balance. madison, james madison going, gotta have both the liberal voice and the conservative voice
to keep things balanced. so as i was working on the book, one of the things that hit me as we're looking at our current predicament was, you know, what, what has gone wrong, you know, what has brought us to this point. and almost all of the issues that we're concerned about revolve around the economy. and i don't care whether you're talking about national security issues or education or immigration or the obvious, you know, where are the jobs, tax issues all of these sort -- it's all an economic conversation. and so i went back to adam smith, wealth of nations. interestingly, published in 1776 right along with the declaration of independence. and i thought, i want to go back to the principles of capitalism because my gut is telling me that has gotten really skew inside this country. and that may be part of the big problem we're having with creating jobs, with expanding
economic opportunity and with the growing disparity between the well-to-do and even the middle class and, certainly, the poor in this country. and in reviewing him, it was like a lightbulb coming on. it was adam smith wrote "wealth of nations" in response to the events in britain. he was a brit. and what was going on over there? the big corporations, then called joint stock companies, but the dutch east inn dees company -- indee's guys were married to the government. the government was sending the military around the world to protect resources and, you know, they were off to india or taking care of problems in the colonies to protect it for big business, and those two entities were married. and what it did was suppressed or eliminated the broad economic opportunity that adam smith
actually thought would boost a nation's production. and resources and revenues. and so in his book he talks about how to expand that opportunity for everyone and headline, big warning, watch out for the concentration of wealth and power into a small, elite class. because that, in fact, is as destructive of capitalism as an overbearing, tyrannical government. he called -- i'll use the term "corporations," -- but he called the corporations unaccountable sovereigns. my conversation here is not class warfare. it does not denounce corporations. i mean, if capitalism was supposed to increase the standard of living for people here and around the world, it has done so without debate.
but we've got to remember his caveats because they apply as much today as the moment he wrote them. and that is anytime you have that kind of concentration, you are skewing the ideal of free markets. you are skewing fair pricing. you are skewing all of the essential elements of capitalism. and we know this. and a big corporation can come into a community and demand that the state and local government pay for the roads and the sewers and -- we know already that they can reduce prices because the taxpayers are picking up everything there. we know that they're getting sales tax waived for ten, twenty years if you just come into our community. they've lowered it there. we know that whether it be pollutants in the air or other costs of doing business, that they have been able to,
basically, neglect or put on to the taxpayers to repair. in essence, they've skewed the system of capitalism. and even frederick hayek -- margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, one of their favorite economic philosophers, wrote "the road to serfdom." you know, he said if you don't have fair pricing, if you are allowed these hidden costs, these, this is not capitalism. and even hayek said you've got to have the government in their balancing -- in there balancing. back to adam smith. he said the only entity big enough to counter the big concentration of wealth and power is the government. the people's government, not a monarchy, not a tyranny, but the people's government. you have to regulate the really big guys so that middle-sized, small businesses, individuals, entrepreneurs can flourish in this broad-based economy. i'm not talking about
overregulating, i'm talking about rational regulations. and so when i realized reading adam smith and tracking it through to present day that hamilton, basically, began to institutionalize a more corporatist system in this country as our economy. and sure enough, when you start reading through history, senator henry clay who was handling the economy for abe lincoln in 1854 said america's never had free trade. give me a break. never. and you sort of track it through, and you see. and it's inevitable that in a capitalist environment you may have real dynamos and begin to earn the money, and you build it up. that's great. and everyone in this country including the people down there in occupy wall street going, you know, we want jobs, we want the american dream, we want the opportunity to make money and grow and do all of this.
nothing wrong with that. it's when the concentration becomes so great that it begins to manipulate and skew the economy and skew the market and retuesday the opportunity -- reduce the opportunity for a broad base in this country that we begin to see damage. and today the reason i think that it is, it is so necessary to relearn this is there is a new piece of the puzzle, and that is in is 1910 or sort of te gilded age corporations could be big and powerful, and the stanford oil and the rockefellers and the carnegies, when they made a lot of money even if the balance was skewed, the money stayed and circulated in this country. even if they were sort of influencing washington, getting things their way, we were still
exchanging currency here. now those same guys are playing in what i call the global e ether, the very same companies. the names have changed, but the same companies now are seeking policies on capitol hill that will help them in china or india, around the world. they may be flagged in the states, although many of them are in bermuda or elsewhere, um, but, in fact, their interests, much of their revenues, not only their plants, but now you're seeing their research and development is moving overseas. and, therefore, if we continue to bolster their interests, then we are bolstering the interests of entities that are not concerned with the well being of the domestic economy. with the american economy.
and when i say this again, i'm not talking about, oh, the well being of union workers or welfare moms. i'm talking about the unite united states of america, its economy on the global playing field. and so many of the policies in the last several decades, the financial industry, sort of the wall street conversation and beyond are helping big, multi-national, transnational entities who are no longer concerned if we are doing the things in this country to build innovation or expand our infrastructure or educate our kids to provide them new workers because their making their -- they're making their money someplace else. and if we want to restore this country and restore capitalism as it was originally contemplated and as it, as it
intended to expand economic opportunity, lifting all boats, making everyone more money including a wonderful, wealthy class in this country, we have to remember those caveats and understand the effect of globalization. and then we have to conservative and liberal alike go back to the three-legged stool of sort of innovation and economic opportunity. of course, education, infrastructure, legal immigration, you know, the best and brightest calling them back to this country, incentivizing them to get educated here, to build their businesses here, to stay here. and understand how much of the decision making and policy making for decades now has, in fact, been helping events overseas and discouraging the
building and sustaining of these, of these amazing, you know, foundation, foundational elements of this successful republic. so that was the reason i wrote book, is trying to take us all the way back and then explain what those philosophies were, where they hit road blocks, where they succeeded and how we got to today. and get people to understand that the ideological messages that we're being told are the cornerstone of liberalism or conservativism, we must, you know, follow this little box, or we are not loyal to our, to our philosophies, that that is nonsense. and we need to go back to the amazing unity that the founders were able to find for the moment, that amazing republic,
the level playing field and then, also, understand the philosophies and principles that on the one hand fought for individual freedoms and liberties and a non-intrusive government, and the other policies -- often conservative policy -- that said we're going to build the infrastructure of this country, we're going to educate our kids. we're going to, to use good business capitalistic principles to build this competitive nation. ..
involved in politics today to have a grasp and the knowledge of what you have and to know what happened in our history. now, i am a very conservative republican, so when you kept talking about the structure and we need to build an infrastructure in schools and all that, i was hearing president obama. that is what he keeps talking about. in my problem is with what you have been sank, and i agree with a lot of what he said, but the problem with president obama, for example, and a much right to make a political statement. >> no, that's as a. >> so when you talk about infrastructure and building schools, i believe in the same thing. but i believe the problem today is what these politicians are telling us they want is really they're lying to us. i don't feel the president obama if he gets another stimulus package antitax is the rich more
in a positive way. a think he's wrong to take that money in this jury to give some to his friends, the unions tomorrow takes on to the teachers or give some, you know, to the people who are going to let him. and as he said, that has been what is happening in our politics for, you know, centuries and oral history. i fear that now all of these things, they sound as if they're positive and your talk knew about them are all upside-down and being used in a very -- but no one to be an alarmist or have a lot of trauma. with their evil. a really do. i think that all of this is skewed. the internationalists, like if i may say george soros, that's how i see him, they want money, control of not just the united states. there are did you but the united states. they're thinking about the world.
i don't think jefferson and adams and george washington were thinking about the world. at think there were thinking about the best interest of the united states of america. and i don't see it anymore. >> you covered a lot of tears -- territory. >> you did, too. >> step around. >> okay. >> see what i can do. >> my question -- >> the core of your question is really, i right in the book that i still come to this day, so believe in our system of government, the republic, well, we must do to preserve the republic. and yet what always messes it up on the right and the left of people. people. and yet the system really has a lot of rules in which we can play. it's pretty flexible, and we are seeing, and you can't have something succeed for 200 plus years and not have flexibility to adapt. flexibility. but you need to understand that
when we expand our for one party for one president's, and you see this. remember george bush, a lot of writing in conversation about the unit's share presidency, a lot of executive orders, citing statements, things done where when the republicans were in control of congress, you know, he's our guy. he's in office. we let it go. i keep reminding people in the book that if you do that you're institutionalizing and acceptance of an expense and a power. the next guy might not be gathered to light. guess what, he or she, he/she bill, i promise you, use that power as well, which is why we have gotten too, as citizens make both parties rain in themselves.
hang in respect the rules themselves so that the system is preserved intact. that way if obama cuts and you are abusing power but george w. bush give you. rating yourself and, and whether it is patriot act. a lot of issues. it is because we have allowed one side to break the rules and then exiled comes in and goes, you know what, you're not giving back that power. again, the system is brilliant, but it is up to us to make sure the human beings that cycle through played by those rules. so right now it is that inherent mistrust of government. at the moment is the democrats. but you hear both sides. we don't trust our government anymore, but i go back to sing
with an amazing system we are not making this lines, both sides played by those rules. now, in terms of the infrastructure, you're telling me you don't trust that they'll use it. there are ways, there are plenty of ways. my god, they can legislate anything. believe me. to ensure that those dollars, the stimulus dollars are going with any to be. >> do you know with a stimulus dollars went to act you have any idea? i don't. >> let's remind everybody, that first stimulus money was thanks to george w. >> i know. the obama's stimulus. i have no idea. >> it's kind of like republicans really went after obama when he says pulling out the last guy out of a rock and all of a sudden we hear this, you know, you are indenturing. and, guys, george w. bush signed an agreement with the -- we had
to be out by this. obama does not get the credit, but he could should not the derision. so when we talk about stimulus dollars it is both parties. that is will keep saying. it's both parties that have been manipulating and is using. and to me in many ways helping a very select group. you talk about george soros, lori about the international conversation. you cut the fiver sakes paid investment bankers on wall street, a recent study shows that 147 corporations basically control a majority of wealth on this planet. that is the planet, not this country. you know, did george soros of the world, and then many people think, well, that is the open society, a liberal agenda. the power is basically corporate power. when i say that it can be used
well. it can be very good for the world, but it can also be bad. and when you allow the concentration of financial wealth and their pursuit of stock prices and big payouts for ceos in the creation over derivative worlds where we are not begin mortar building things , they are not -- there are about putting money in investment or used to beat philipp things that will build the domestic economy, but they're basically creating a casino analyst with the thought of a button on the computer they're making profits betting on both sides of the game and scrambling around in producing nothing. they produce mss the show up in a bank account somewhere, but they are not -- lawyers are accused. they are producing not much of anything, except ginning and touring around computer numbers. that is, to me, a really big concern. and so you're being told that
soros is the threat. in the time of concentrated wealth and power, particularly now on a global scale that is interested in a very tiny percentage doing well and not at least stimulating the economic growth so that they have consumers in this country, so that people can spend their money and make money in keep the economy going. then we are in real trouble. i keep telling you, radiology, it does not mean conservative or liberal, but what they are telling him is your appropriate list of positions a day because i challenge both the democrats and republicans to defend those given political origins, history, study of economics and politics and held those positions have gotten us into this mess.
i talked to bitch mcconnell and listened to him in a very small group yesterday. and at the very end i did ask him. asset senator, what i'm hearing is deregulation, lower taxes, smaller government. would you agree or disagree? but that is kind of what got us to 2008. that's how we get there. now, how come that is the same policy that we are supposed to be using to get at of this mess, and the alternative is not government and taxes. i am a pragmatic sort of balance and all of this. and i could not really get an answer, but that is because that is reality, that is the masses, and whenever the affective is, whatever the actual pragmatic results, if we say it often enough people will believe it. they will quit thinking and it will buy the etiology, and that is a mistake for all of us. >> we also need term limits
because we're people, and i don't think the founders never envisioned that these politicians would be. >> i will address that because actually i used to believe, by georgia want to deal to vote. i want to deal to vote for the same personnel turnover again. it is done so frightening. and so you realize that some much of the power on capitol hill is the long term staffers, the institutions. not just the individuals. and so where i come back down is , unless we have a literally and supporting the constitution. no, my god. rea not going to allow people with more money. you get to give you ten bucks and that's it. i prefer public financing of campaigns entirely.
but you cannot allow corporate -- corporations to buy politics, and that's what's going on. the united decision in 2010, the supreme court says there legalized. the corporations purchasing our system, and i assure you that is not what the founders believed in. and if your kid takes campaign finance reform and slow the lobbyists revolving door we could fix so many problems, a conservative lobbyists that to skin now with this new book. and in it he says let me tell you how high but -- fought capitol hill. don't kid yourself, but capitol hill. he says, the best thing i can ever do is walk into congressman are senators office and find top staffers and say, well, when you get tired doing this stuff comes in the.
you know, all have a six, seven figured doubling for you. the minute their eyes lit up he knew he had them. he said not only would they say, i'd say job and it's a high, but they would bring the the hurdle. there would say, here is what is going on in the office. don't you want to know? don't you want to enforce this? and, again, he is a great conservative example. the whole system, the whole system is so corrupted by money. and i am fine. if ever representative up to represent the people who put them there, read state jobless state, conservative, liberal, let's have the grand clash that the founders intended. the smell of its going on in the american people on both sides of the political system have been greatly disserved come and the system is being corrupted as a
result. >> i agree with your money. i'll make the note. for lobbyists and himself was a great love is because he knew everybody to try to get special favors for his firm, but the good things about capitalism, the firm failed, took too many risks. it was great. not for him. he did not fail. he had lobbyists. willing to say no more. the institution of lobbyists and government. and not even sure. they sort of run things. and politicians, major objective is to get reelected. the only way they get reelected is money.
after everyone on the% on term limits, but their the ones that have to give us terminus of the liver happen. texas like campaign finance reform. unless we do from the ground up. >> but one of the things that i think it's sad is that and no mention, to people on different sides of the aisle. a degree of a crisis of leaders. to me brag of reagan was a great leader, and he knew had to get things done. hit me here. bill clinton got things done. you know. and so we have a crisis of leaders. and i think that is what americans are looking for, but unfortunately we don't see it. the other thing, it, because i don't think this is historic in our country. one of the things that it's nothing done in the united states is closer. dugard 2060 of anything. also president who does not use a veto. i actually think if we could lead congress cap things right
now we have nothing. >> eleven your time and up. we had a really good system. these are going on to literally manipulate the system itself to favor one side or the other, and right now the impetus seems to be in the hands of the republican. some of saying, democrats have never done that, but the stick this present moment in time. the changes, whether it's trying to limit voting rights in this country, and there are some really dramatic attempts to limit voting rights in this country, of course gerrymandering of district commandos such a been guilty, by george we ought to have an independent because there is an article on the rack talk about whether or not the constitutional issue. a deprivation.
>> absolutely. absolutely. and that think it was tom coburn, the senator from oklahoma lost talking to constituents in the actually get booed when he said let's quit than name-calling, the character assassination and fight them on policy. their policies, and we can win on policies or richelieu's. and that applies to both sides. so it's back to, you bet, all of this insane 60 votes to get something to the floor and fellow. the gerrymandering of district to guarantee that we have prevented millions of people from going to the ballot. the conservative institutions and liberal alike showing dead this voter fraud in this country , they might come up with 20, 30, 50 cases over a long and extended time frame. that is being used as a rationale to prevent no lanes of
people from voting. you know, i get that both sides want to win, but you don't do it by cheating. you do it by presenting the best policies for the american people , and you win on the merits. and when we allow that to happen we are destroying the institutions of our constitutional republic, and we're going to pay a price. [inaudible] to be a good president or senator from your state are your country. >> that's right. the american people, both sides, they want -- they want integrity. they want to know who the person is. we have accepted the game of running to your primary voters. we're going to go relief far to the left in the right. of course there going to run to
the center. but a minute. how can it possibly then know who these on either side. but it is a game, and we are tested players in a when we allow it, but the citizens in the media, with a giggle and a smirk. going to be coming into the center. and then we are shocked or surprised that some of the suffolk comes out of the white house or capitol hill, because we don't know who these people are. and so much of the problem we are complaining again is the are allowing our team to skew. our guys are in office, whichever side. rather than first respecting the system knowing that we will all be okay, all of us, every respect the integrity of the system and we put the first, make both sides played by those
rules and then made the best man or woman when. [applause] [applause] >> for more information about the of the visitor website, crier communications . >> doctor, you have written a few books and archaeology. why is it important for people to learn history through archaeology? >> it is often said that history is written by the victors. and we read about such a thing as a major battles, generals, military campaigns. history talks about those who won. it talks about the famous, it talks about the creative. archaeology, the other hand talks about ordinary people.
we dig up the remains of soldiers on average days at the force from a military encampments. it is the real lives of real people and archaeology gets. whereas history is traditionally been biased toward the famous people, the important people. well, to an archaeologist everyone is important. when i did get military camps and digging up yet activities, the things that people were doing threonine 65 days of the year, not what they did on the one in two days there were fighting during the year. some archaeologists love to say it is everyone's story that we try to tell. >> indies but a lot about how you done multiple kinds of archaeology. how to use such a transition to a military archaeology? >> that was trained in central mexico. fun and exciting to dig in other
countries, but gradually it started historical sites in america, these early factories. the gun factory many years ago. the less factory. the national park service ax to fall was still working at the saratoga field. in airports and military sites before. i did know, though, that when you dig up early america people in general are drawn to certain types of things. other things maybe they don't find quite as exciting. it was 1985 that the first guided digging. i was amazed to find that everybody is fascinated by early military history. and it's not just memorizing facts and a rising strategies. people want to actually go with the action was. there want to stand for the soldiers.
a ban at the top part of a musket. but the physically connect with evidence from traces from past wars and battles. the moment i started many people signed up today. magazines started investing articles. i never realized that interest exists here in america for all the old military campaigns, all the old fords, and i suddenly realized i never planned to dig in my life, but all of a sudden people cared. people wanted to visit. people want to connect with the passengers.
>> what does that mean? >> i'm afraid that battlefields are such famous popular sites that the moment of battle was over any time in our past local people would defend -- descend to pick up souvenirs. and in no time at all those musket balls, those bullets, those payments would be picked up and carried off. also a people live nearby, if the remains of the four were starting to chrome -- crumble wrought the garrison had left. local citizens to local townspeople would always go there, grab anything that they could walk off, weather breaks,
fireplaces, timbers and take them off and use them for their own houses. so military sites are compromised all the time. people wanting souvenir stand watching things for their own use. so by the time the archaeologists arrived there is only a fragment of what was once they're in a military site. >> what are some of the things he found that people would not expect the you would find at a ford or a battlefield, and what types of things tell the most tourists? >> at think what people expect us to find of the things like musket balls from a gun parts, and that is what is interesting. i see the students did very excited. but i think the more unexpected things i usually the personal items, things that a soldier actually have on their body, buttons and buckles, cufflinks,
anything of a personal nature. you suddenly see the blood and realize the real person was wearing netball. you're connecting with the soldier from the past. i think among the unexpected things that we find it is the fancy dance. at think we assume everything is so the standard military issue never was wearing the same thing, the san weapons. all the sudden you find something nice, and one-fourth it comes to mind is for garnish. that is where the city of albany , new york yesterday. ford orange was an early dutch fort, and it -- you would expect on the frontier in the 1600's everything would be supplied crude. well, they found the fanciest class vessels, glass bottles, glass bowls. messes things way end of the frontier.
soldiers, people living in fords did not exist have crude, simple, out of date garbage, if you will. they had nice things. it wanted to bring the best things from home, from the mother country, from europe with them to the frontiers of america . when archaeologists find a really nice thing they serve a smile to ourselves and say, those officers, those soldiers, they didn't care for themselves. >> and what are you digging out? an archaeological dig a you're looking at right now they will work on this wall? >> well, and doing two things right now. in the summertime fort william henry end late tours new york. this side of the last of the mohicans. so, for anyone that has read james finn workers read it to velez model or seen the most recent movie, that is for for currently digging in the summer.
however, this wall here on campus, here at plymouth state university we are digging on campus. universities all across america are doing campus days these days . it's hard first is to take a whole summer off to go far away to dig something, but turn the school year campus which include cases where. that's the we love to do it's exciting to them. 100 feet from their classroom there didn't storm and now. >> thank you so much for your time. >> good to be here. >> the c-span campaign bus business communities across the country to follow the bus travels.